Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 9

In my latest reading of Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, Ron Paul talked about how the United States in 2009 spent 46.5 per cent of the world's military expenditures, then he asks, "And how much of the rest of the world's spending is due to nations protecting themselves against the United States as the perceived threat?"

Ron Paul elaborates on page 257: "Now, most Americans can't even conceive of other countries believing the United States to be a threat.  And yet, ours is the only government that will travel to far distant lands to overthrow governments, station troops, and drop bombs on people.  The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against people.  And are we surprised that many people in the world regard the United States as a threat?"

Is there truth to this?  I don't think that we are the only country that has overthrown foreign governments, sent troops, or dropped bombs, for (if I'm not mistaken) the Soviet Union did that.  Nowadays, other than us, there does not appear to be a massive nation that does these things, and yet terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda certainly cause destruction and mayhem (as Ron Paul knows).  But I can understand Ron Paul's point that the U.S. is a looming presence in the world, and I'd say that has been for good and for ill, as far as other countries are concerned.

The Unbaptized Believer; Ancient Quiet Times

I have two items for my write-up today on The Cambridge History of Christianity: Constantine to c. 600.

1.  Augustine Casiday has a chapter in the book, "Sin and salvation: Experiences and reflections".  What intrigued me about this chapter was Casiday's discussion of believers who were not yet baptized, but were preparing for baptism (i.e., being educated in the teachings of the church).  According to Casiday, it was believed that baptism was necessary to go to heaven and that baptism opened the eyes of the initiate in a spiritual sense.  At the same time, there was also a notion that those who were preparing for baptism had some measure of grace that would enable them to live a righteous life----even before their baptism.

This topic interested me because there was a long period of time when I was a believer yet was not baptized, and I wondered certain things: Am I saved?  Do I have the Holy Spirit?  Moreover, there are debates within Christianity today about whether or not baptism is essential for salvation or a new life in Christ.

2.  Georgia Frank has a chapter, "From Antioch to Arles: Lay devotion in context".  On pages 533-534, Frank talks about how John Chrysostom (fourth century C.E.) encouraged the educated elites to have a weekly quiet time----to read Scripture, to meditate upon it, to write, and to do these sorts of things in a quiet place.

I found that interesting on account of something that a Christian once told me in a class: that evangelicals have a culture of doing a quiet time, but that may not have been feasible for a number of people in the ancient world because so many could not read.  How, then, would they know God?  But a quiet time was feasible for some: there are Psalms about meditating on God's law, the rabbis thought about Torah and did not want to be distracted while doing so, and early Christians recognized the value of a quiet time with God.  I suppose the non-literate would learn about God from the Temple, priests, the synagogue, or church (depending on what community they were in).

Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 8

In his chapter on "Public Land" in Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, Ron Paul argues that federal land should be turned over to the states so that it can be sold to private interests.

On page 233, Paul anticipates an objection to this idea: "Some argue that in the West, the land has to be managed by the federal government due to the natural resources available.  They argue that these resources belong to the people and shouldn't fall into the hands of a few rich individuals."  I raised a similar concern about the privatization of the seas in my post here.

So how does Ron Paul respond to this objection?  First of all, he says that, under the status quo, a few politicians control the land, and that "special interests...benefit from bureaucratic and political schemes" (page 233).  That's the sort of argument that I've heard a number of times from libertarians: that big government benefits rich special interests. What caught my eye, though, was Paul's second argument----that private ownership of land can lead to less wealthy people benefiting.  Paul states on pages 233-234:

"Texas is a good example of how private ownership of land facilitated the development and use of its natural resources----especially oil, gas, and coal.  In the beginning, the Spanish land grants allowed large blocks of land to fall into the hands of a few.  But over time, for economic reasons, this land was broken up into smaller and smaller pieces.  Ownership of the oil was divided according to private property rights, which allowed many less wealthy people to benefit.  The risks were taken by the entrepreneurs and the benefits were spread generously to small landowners with mineral rights and to the workers who labored in the industry.  Before joining the union----probably a mistake----the Republic of Texas owned very little land.  Texas never needed the federal government to manage its progress, whether it concerned natural resources, agriculture, or ranching."

In my opinion, this is probably the best point in Ron Paul's book.  Against the argument that private ownership leads to the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few, Paul presents a historical example in which a lot of land was initially held by only a few people, but economics led to that land becoming more widely distributed.  A lot of times, the libertarians I read argue that government fosters monopoly and income inequality by supporting rich corporations, but they do not address the concern that a laissez-faire economy would itself result in survival of the fittest and the concentration of wealth and power into a few hands.  Ron Paul, at least, does address that concern.  But I wish that he had gone into more detail, explaining what economic factors led to the land becoming more widely distributed.

In quoting that passage from Paul's book, I had to include the part about how the Republic of Texas joining the union was a mistake.  Ron Paul offers some pretty unconventional views on American history in this book!  On page 211, he discusses the erosion of limited government in America, an erosion that he considers to be a bad thing.  He states: "The erosion started early, and it could be argued that even the Constitution itself weakened this principle that was embedded in the Articles of Confederation."  This is the second time in the book that Paul speaks highly of the Articles of Confederation.

The Divinity of the Holy Spirit in Fourth Century Debate

I grew up in an offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, which was Binitarian rather than Trinitarian.  What's "Binitarian" mean?  Essentially, we thought that God the Father and God the Son were God, whereas the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force rather than the third person of the Trinity.

An argument that I heard from a Binitarian relative of mine was that the controversies about the Godhead in the early days of Christianity concerned whether or not Jesus was God, whereas the Holy Spirit was not an issue.  According to him, when the church officially declared that Jesus was God, it included the idea that the Holy Spirit was God as an afterthought.  My relative's implication was probably that the notion that the Holy Spirit was God (or even a personal being) was not a long-standing feature of Christian teaching prior to the Nicene Creed.  My relative supported this argument with a scholarly entry in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

As a result of what my relative said, I've had questions about the Holy Spirit in early Christian thought.  Was the Holy Spirit believed to be a personal being or an impersonal force?  And, if the Holy Spirit was long considered to be a personal being, did Arius address the alleged threat to monotheism that could result from considering the Holy Spirit to be God, since Arius had the same sort of concern about Jesus being God?

It turns out that the divinity of the Holy Spirit was also debated in controversies about the Godhead, and my impression is that the various sides agreed that the Holy Spirit was a personal being.  Khaled Anatolios discusses this issue in his excellent (and readable) essay, "Discourse on the Trinity", which is in The Cambridge History of Christianity: Constantine to c. 600.

Anatolios acknowledges that Arius did not focus his attention on the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit was an afterthought in the Nicene Creed.  At the same time, Anatolios states on page 441 that Arius "certainly considered the Spirit to be a creature."  Anatolios also states that the Homoians and Eunomius "maintained that the Spirit...was subordinate to the Son and not an object of worship."  A group called the Tropici held "that the Spirit was created as an angel, the chief of God's 'ministering spirits' (cf. Hebrews 1.14)."  Against such ideas, Athanasius (who was prominent in the debate about Jesus' divine status) and Basil of Caesarea affirmed that the Holy Spirit was God.  So the various sides agreed that the Spirit was personal, but they disagreed about whether the Spirit was God.

6/19/2012 Links

I have three links for today:

1.  Sarah Moon’s blog has a guest post by Abe Kobylanski entitled What Makes a Good Daddy?  Abe talks about how certain Christians (such as the Christians in a small group that he was in) claim that only Christians can show love, and yet his father is an atheist and has shown love to him numerous times.  Abe asks if all love, including the love shown by non-Christians, can be from God.  This is a beautiful post because of what Abe says about his father.  But (whether this would be Abe’s intention or not) the post also reminded me of why I tend to shy away from evangelical small groups, in which (in my opinion, based on my experience) there’s a lot of simplistic bombast.

2.  Derek Leman has an excellent post, Chicken or Egg? Bible and Culture, in which he touches on similarities between Yom Kippur and a Babylonian day (while also acknowledging that there are differences between the two).  So did a biblical author simply copy from another culture?  What are the theological implications of that?  Derek says that the ways in which the Hebrew Bible reflect its ancient Near Eastern environment demonstrate that revelation is incarnational and that God dialogues with human beings.  Derek states: “God dialogues more so than lecturing. Revelation is give and take, a discussion. And we are partners in the discussion, because we are made of God-stuff. “  Derek makes essentially the same point as Peter Enns in Inspiration and Incarnation, which many have echoed.  But Derek made it in a manner that resonated with me.

3.  And, speaking of Peter Enns, he has a post on evangelicals getting a Ph.D. in biblical studies—-advice for those considering it, potential pitfalls, how one shouldn’t attribute certain thoughts and feelings to God, etc.

Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 7: Marriage Policy, Health Care

For my write-up today on Ron Paul's Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, I'll talk some about Ron Paul's views on marriage policy and health care.

1.  Ron Paul thinks that the federal government should stay out of the marriage business and that gay couples have the First Amendment right to call their union a marriage.  Regarding the argument that gay marriage should be legally recognized so that gay couples can have the same benefits that heterosexual married couples have, Paul states on page 184: "When dealing with government benefits, this becomes an economic redistribution issue----a problem that would not be found in a truly free society" (page 184).

Paul states that the issue of insurance benefits should be solved by voluntary agreement.  In terms of Social Security benefits, Paul says that people could be free to designate whom their beneficiaries would be, as occurs in private insurance, but Paul then calls this approach "expanding a welfare program" (page 184), which, for him, is probably a bad thing.  According to this site, Paul supports private retirement accounts, so perhaps he could argue that, if people were in charge of their own retirement money, they could determine whom their beneficiaries would be.

I do not know enough about the benefits that heterosexual married couples receive to critique Ron Paul's position.  The benefits that relate to government spending or law (at least at the federal level) would probably become a moot point in Ron Paul's libertarian society.  Federal laws that discriminate in favor of heterosexual marriages would be a thing of the past, and people would have charge of more of their own money, and they could then determine for themselves who would benefit from it.  The benefits that pertain to discrimination by private interests would still be a problem in Ron Paul's libertarian society, unless growing tolerance towards homosexuality leads to a lessening of such discrimination.  There are companies, after all, that provide benefits to same-sex couples.

Click here to read about "Ron Paul's "ambivalence on gay issues".

2.  Ron Paul presents typical conservative or libertarian arguments about health care: that health insurance is legally required to cover too much, which is bad because that drives up premiums; that people who have "better health habits" should not have to "pay more to take care of those who don't" (page 191); that there should be tort reform (but Paul also thinks that there should be a means for people to be compensated for doctors' mistakes, without involving the trial lawyers); that government intervention drives up the cost of health care (the same way that the government's defense budget makes a $5 hammer $700); and that a free market will deliver health care at an affordable price, the same way that technological wonders such as the cell phone have become affordable through the free-market.  Paul also believes in a sound monetary policy that will keep down inflation.

For Paul, part of the problem is that the supply of medical care has been restricted.  There is licensing that "strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care" (page 195).  According to Paul, attempts to protect the incomes of doctors and to discriminate against homeopathy resulted in the closing down of medical schools, which occurred since 1910.  Paul affirms on page 196 that "we need to remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care", and that "We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives."

Again, there are things that I do not know, so I am limited in my ability to evaluate what Ron Paul is saying.  Do private insurance companies discriminate against homeopathy, and, if so, is this due to their choice, or to law?  If the former is the case, then Ron Paul's libertarian society may not help matters, unless there is enough demand for health insurance that covers homeopathy.  Regarding holistic or homeopathic medicine, I know a little bit more, since there were people in my family who owned a health food store, and the FDA sought to ban certain vitamins.

Can Ron Paul's libertarian society bring down the cost of health care?  Many argue that health care is expensive on account of technology, but libertarians have argued that the free market can bring down the price of technology, as has occurred with cell phones.  Perhaps the same could occur with health care technology in a free society.  Unfortunately, I don't see that sort of society coming anytime soon.  As Medicaid expands, however, we may move closer to a single-payer system, and, in terms of health care, that costs less than the system that the U.S. has.

Faith and Extra-Biblical Sources

For my write-up today on The Cambridge History of Christianity: Constantine to c. 600, I'll quote or refer to passages from Brownen Neil's "Towards defining a Christian culture: The Christian transformation of classical literature".  These passages pertain to the question of whether Christians should draw from extra-biblical sources, such as philosophy, or if they should treat the Bible (or the teachings of their religion) as sufficient in terms of guiding them on what life and the world are like.

Page 321: Julian in Against the Galileans 229C (Burr's translation) says, "If it is enough for you to read your own Scriptures, why do you sample the reading of the Hellenes?"

Page 322: Jerome said, "O Lord, if ever I possess or read secular writings, I have denied thee."
On pages 328-329, Brownen talks about how certain early Christians drew from the insights of philosophy, while also holding to their beliefs about what the Scriptures teach.  For example, John Chrysostom told a man who lost his brother to bear the death with equanimity and to remember the virtue of the departed, advice which coincides with Stoicism.  But Chrysostom departs from Stoicism in his belief that death is not the end because there is immortal life, and so the one who lost his brother should rejoice and remember that virtuous and godliness lead to immortality.  Similarly, Theodore of Cyrrhus "emphasises the Christian viewpoint, while at the same time insisting on philosophical reasoning as the correct antidote to sorrow in bereavement."

Page 331: In Graecarum affectionum curatio, "Theodoret sought to discredit the writings of Greek philosophers...by comparing them with scripture passages on the same subject.  By this means he offered a caricature of Greek learning's inconsistencies as opposed to the 'quiet certainty of revelation'.  His position was 'faith before knowledge'."

Should Christians draw from secular sources as they seek insight on how to live, or should they stick with the Bible alone, viewing the Bible as sufficient?

I remember when I was interviewing to be in the Honor Scholars' program at DePauw University.  A professor and another student had read my application essays, which were very pro-Christianity.  The professor's first question to me was: "If you already know all the answers on account of your faith, why do you need to learn, or read anything outside of the Bible?"  I answered something, since I was pretty glib at coming up with answers back then, a talent that I don't have to the same extent in my confused adulthood.  But, notwithstanding my outward confidence in the meeting, the professor's question still perplexed me.

During dinner-time that night, when I asked my Dad why a Christian should read other things besides the Bible, he replied that the Bible tells us to love our neighbors, but how to do so is really complicated.  Consequently, one can gather from extra-biblical insights and the realm of real life ways to love one's neighbor.  I agree with this sentiment.  From real life and from books, one can learn about the complexities of what makes people tick, and that can enable us to understand ourselves and others, and to love ourselves and others.

The thing is, there are so many ideas about what we should do, and so I can identify with Theodoret's yearning for "the quiet certainty of revelation".  There's something attractive about the certainty of religious people, including the authors of the Bible: Here is the way, so walk in it!  But is the certainty an illusion?  After all, religious people, including the authors of the Bible, have diverse (even contradictory) ideas about what to do in life.